User talk:76.107.167.149
Hi, welcome to the ! Thanks for your edit to the Darkspawn page. ' '. It's an easy way to keep track of your contributions and helps you communicate with the rest of the community. Plus, registered users only see ads on the Main Page! If you are new to Fandom or wikis in general, please visit the for an outline of some of the main parts of the site and links to pages that tell you how to edit. Discussion of any aspect of the site, and enquiries, can be made in or on the associated with each article. Please sign and date (using four tildes ~~~~) any messages you post on talk pages so that readers know who they're talking to. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Zoev (Talk) 17:59, February 20, 2010 Your Sophia Dryden 'contribution' reverted. That was a perfectly valid observation. Another destructive 'edit' in similar style (especially accompanied by such a comment), and your IP address will be blocked for vandalism. Trust me. IN 04:14, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :If you wish to remove material in the future please leave a factual edit summary of why you have done so. Leaving no summary makes the intent of the edit unclear, and judgemental personal commentary is not acceptable. You can say why you disagree with a point of view without calling it "inane crap". 05:09, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :I can call inane crap whatever I please to call it. I deleted that "perfectly valid observation" because I believed that some random person's unsupported speculation didn't have any place on an informative article. The funniest thing is imagining IN's self-righteous ego inflating even further as he reverted my edit. Just FYI, the fact that you disagree with my editorial choice doesn't make it vandalism. 17:54, May 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Actually, no you can't. You can civilly say you disagree with what has been added, but calling it 'inane crap' is inappropriate. You're right though in that your edit is not vandalism, but you can't qualify it as anything better. [[User:Max21|Max'21']] (talk | ) 18:00, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :Actually, I can qualify it as something better. What was there when I deleted it was unprofessionally written. It drew a factual conclusion supported only by vague comments like "Look at his hairstyle! TOTALLY Jewish". In fact, going back and looking at the article, that section has been rewritten in a non-personal, encyclopedic manner that presents a couple of facts and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions from it. In other words, GOOD. When I saw the original section, the fact that it was terribly written and not really relevant to Dragon Age itself, I made the decision to delete it. But if you would all like to climb off the mighty high horse of Dragon Age Wiki Editorship, you might have understood that. 18:06, May 9, 2010 (UTC) ::This is, at least in my eyes, not a content debate but, instead, a behavioral discussion. I agree with you that it had no place in the article. I still don't think it does because it is pure speculation. My issue, and the issue brought up above, is your insults. So what you said just now makes no difference. There are still policies on this wiki, and as a member of the community, you are obligated to follow them just like everyone else. [[User:Max21|Max'21']] (talk | ) 18:14, May 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Also, I would like to quote your own code of conduct. Incivility Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks.' A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity' directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern. In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, be understanding (people do say things when they get upset) rather than judgemental, and do not respond in kind. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have considered it uncivil and that to insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. This was one incident. It was not particularly severe or harsh, and yet, this fellow at the top of this discussion swings in and starts throwing around words like "vandalism" and "IP will be blocked". 18:09, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :Yes, it was one incident, which is why I am asking you to take more caution in the future. Retaliation is only going to get you into deeper trouble. Your above comments, though (such as "if you would all like to climb off the mighty high horse"), are in retaliation. IN was wrong in threatening a block, especially with one controversial edit, but that doesn't excuse you. :IN, I am going to request that you hold on to heavy words a little longer. Calling edits vandalism when they are most definitely not is a type of personal attack, since you are not assuming good faith. Also, threatening a block when you have no such authority is overreaching and unnecessary. [[User:Max21|Max'21']] (talk | ) 18:14, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :::That's acceptable. I'm willing to apologize to the original author of the section I deleted for my initial comment, as well to the others on this talk page who I might have offended with that particular comment. I hope I can be excused considering my perspective- suddenly attacked with practically no provocation. 18:19, May 9, 2010 (UTC)